Korean Job Discussion Forums

[thepeel]

I remember Chomsky saying at a lecture many years back that when it is mostly poor people who smoke, the state will then ban cigs.

Anyone wanna take a swing at what the consequences will be of this (should it happen)?

How about what social institutions will allow it to happen?


http://www.ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAndRegion/2006/04/09/1526632-sun.html

[Bulsajo]

Let me guess- you still smoke, right?

For me personally, Ontario's high cigarette prices and taxes combined with a ban on smoking in public places in Ottawa was the impetus for me to quit and stay that way.
Basically Chomsky's argument is that banning smoking is oppressing the poor?
I don't understand that argument.
It's cheaper to quit, in so many ways.
A week's worh of patches, for example- much less than a week's worth of smokes, at least I'm from, which is where you article is from.
Breaking the psychological addiction doesn't require a shrink or a prescription in most cases- you can get info to help break the pschological addiction for free from the internet and from books which are available at the library.

We know smoking is highly addictive; should we legalize Heroin because most addicts are poor? Or is Chomsky cherry picking his argument?

Or is it because tobacco companies are American and provide jobs to Americans?
Coke and Heroin are made by foreigners for the most part...

[ddeubel]

[Bulsajo]

I'm not following is this line of reasoning as it pertains to cigarettes- how is banning smoking a ploy by the rich for their own self-interest?

[jinglejangle]

Speaking for the US I would say that if it was only poor people who smoked no one in the government would give a cr@p nor see any reason to lose the tax revenues.

[Bulsajo]

[dogbert]

How does Chomsky know that the majority of smokers now are not poor? I'd wager that they are. As education levels (and with them, earning power) increase, the percentage of smokers is likely to decrease.

[red headed stranger]

Banning smoking in the US would have a negative effect on the government and the capitalists that Chomsky hates so much. The big corporations would lose a huge revenue stream, and a lot of tax revenue would be lost.

Moreover, In the US it has always been my impression that the majority of smokers are lower on the socioeconomic ladder.

[thepeel]

What he was getting at is that it is much easier to create a moral panic about one thing or another when it is a marginalized group that is primarily affected.

In Canada, where the article is from, there is an incentive (though one that may ignore basic math and economics) to ban. Smokers consume socialized health care services much more than do nonsmokers, or so the story goes (another idea is that because we die sooner we actually consume less). So, despite the tax revenue --that may or may not compensate for this-- the dumb will get ornery about 'those people' consuming more health care than do they. The moral panic is on.

Also, some people, from both left and right, view consumption of certain chemicals or foods to be an evil in and of itself. These are often the same people who tirelessly advocate government to do their bidding. Some people can simply not leave others alone.

Also, some people just like to control what others do. This vice is particularly evident in government. Never underestimate the depths of government stupidity and how far it is willing to go to control.

If or when they are banned, expect organized crime to pull up the slack.

[desultude]

[Bulsajo]

[On the other hand]

[Bulsajo]

[On the other hand]

[thepeel]

It was at a lecture at the University of British Columbia. I can't provide a quote. Believe me or not, I don't care.

You're damn right that organized crime is already involved. And their involvement will only get worse if and when they are totally prohibited.


Look, the point of me posting this isn't to say that smoking is good or bad. It is most certainly bad. I post it because, in the face of the failure of alcohol prohibition in the USA and the current mess that is prohibition of drugs in Canada and the USA, it hardly seems wise to seek out other things to create a black market in.

I also post it because, I belive, with every piece of nanny-state legislation that is passed, our liberty decreases. Say what you want about the horrors of smoking, but if I own my body than I can do to it what I want.

The prohibition of narcotics etc is precisely the transfer of ownership of self from the individual to the state. No matter how far to the loony left or hysterical right you are, this is certainly, at the very least, a problem.